Critically ill man 'former Russian spy'

Much like most of yours on 'Lastrades' and Ms Skripal wanting nothing to do with the country that tried to kill her.

Russian actors
mr.Brondukov as inspector Lestrade
mr.Livanov as Holmes
Sherlock Holmes stories are fantastically popular in Russia and I'm a big fan from childhood.
My question was - When your 250 'Lestrades' will present more or less plausible version of the poisoning?
The question is not pointless.
Your right answer is - 'highly likely' - never. Anyway not anytime soon.
 

Russian actors
mr.Brondukov as inspector Lestrade
mr.Livanov as Holmes
Sherlock Holmes stories are fantastically popular in Russia and I'm a big fan from childhood.
My question was - When your 250 'Lestrades' will present more or less plausible version of the poisoning?
The question is not pointless.
Your right answer is - 'highly likely' - never. Anyway not anytime soon.
It's been explained countless times, but as usual, your HOTO notes are pants

This is a UK criminal investigation. Probably one of the biggest in years. Like the 'terror' investigations they will dot all of the i's and cross all of the t's. They will gather their evidence file and make a submission to the CPS. Warrants will be issued if in UK or Europe. If not, requests for extradition will be made and undoubtedly denied.

This is how the UK does it. In Russia they round up a couple of Chechens, charge them etc.

As before, I'd rather have 250 'Lestrades' than one Beria or even a Alexander Bortnikov - Wikipedia
 

Russian actors
mr.Brondukov as inspector Lestrade
mr.Livanov as Holmes
Sherlock Holmes stories are fantastically popular in Russia and I'm a big fan from childhood.
My question was - When your 250 'Lestrades' will present more or less plausible version of the poisoning?
The question is not pointless.
Your right answer is - 'highly likely' - never. Anyway not anytime soon.
You mean, when will the criminal investigation present a case that does not show the murderous and morally bankrupt Russian Govt in a bad light?

Possibly never, I would hazard.
 
So now let's wait when 250 'Lestrades' will complete their investigation, when they will elaborate more or less plausible version of poisoning.
Well, I have had about a week away from posting stuff doing the mundane things I usually do. I have not seen the Sergei collective deviate from the old mantra in any way whatsoever since my last visit. The arguments are quite redundant now and I am not going to go down the route of rebuttal because I do not wish to give credence to groundless and often offensive conjecture from your end repeated consistently. Come up with a scenario in which the Russian state apparatus did it and then I will engage. Everything else you say is diversion and is now becoming tedious.

Have a look at the highly popular Sherlock Holmes again.

It was written at a time when the class system in the UK was all pervasive. Mr Holmes was the gifted amateur gentleman. Mr Lestrade the professional by virtue of bent and possibly economic necessity. Mr Holmes was well educated. Mr Lestrade was not. Despite these things, Lestrade had achieved high rank, was diligent and hard working. He was respected by his peers and was a good functional copper within the remit of normal crime.

In essence, he was a literary foil to Holmes. Despite this, there was an affection between them both. Strange that you did not notice this element of the class system.

You, of course, use the word Lestrade to imply incompetence. In actual fact, the techniques of such a fictional character are exactly what are needed in this case. Legwork, detail, persistence . Not seeing the light by perceived self worth as per Holmes. Maybe read between the lines of your own government like you may do with a detailed inspection of the Holmes canon.
 
What was the initial reason to kill ms.Skripal then?
You tell me. Perhaps she is collateral damage in the attempted murder of her father, perhaps because she is his closest living relative and the person(s) who want him dead are perfectly happy to wipe the family
But if this mysterious 'someone' would attempt, only attempt to to kill ms.Skripal then it would unmask the 'someone', would it?
Maybe - but the British are not in the habit of putting victims back in the face of danger to catch the attackers second attempt, and especially not if it could be state ordered and a killer is willing to sacrifice themselves to get the job done, perhaps also she doesn’t want to be a sacrificial goat
However, in this case Russian consular officer would have a right to visit the detained person.
Yes if she wanted - but she isn’t being detained - it’s a hypothetical response to your hypothetical theories
In this case she has right for a lawyer, has she?
Yes - but again a hypothetical response to you. She is not being detained and is not suspected of anything
On what legal ground?
Another hypothetical response to your post that I quoted. If she was suicidal and needed to be sectioned for her own protection, which has to have suitable criteria
Again this is not the case


So she does not want to be seen by anybody,
You’re getting the point now
including her 90yo Grandmother? She does not want just to make a telephone call to her? Sorry but it contradicts to the common sense.
British authorities could invite the Grandmother, her cousin to the embassy in Moscow to give the relatives an ability to contact with ms Skripal via Skype. Why not?
Why would they - it’s up to her
It would remove all doubts.
But now it is unclear is ms.Skripal a free person, can she move freely, can she use internet. She doesn't visit her pages in social networks. But why? It is not typical for young modern woman. It is highly suspicious
A young modern woman who has just got fit enough to leave hospital after the attempted murder of her and her father and is likely to be in fear of her life from her home country. I know young modern women who have shut down all contact for less - they’ve either come off line totally or put together new accounts with heavy personal protection
I’ve been a bit worried about one of my exes who has cut down her Facebook use, she occasionally pops into converasations about being sorry but she’s keeping a low profile etc
.
She’s probably fed up with us all taking her aside for a quiet chat to see she’s ok. She’s fine, just trying to not spend so much time on a screen and have real life instead
I’m pretty certain that Yulia has many reasons for keeping off her Facebook etc, she has phoned Russia and she wants to be out of the limelight
 
[QUOTE="KGB_resident, post: 8530489, member: 8026"On what legal ground?

[/QUOTE]

Mental Health Act 1983. This can only be done by two doctors and a social worker (or approved mental health professional, but in practice it’s a social worker) and can be for a variety of periods for assessment or treatment. The person must be suffering from a mental illness and it must be a treatable one plus be of significant risk to themselves or others. It’s not easy to get all three people to agree to the section being put in place and that’s absolutely as it should be.
There are rigorous appeals processes throughout the period of detention and the panel is entirely independent of the health organisation (and it can only be a health organisation) detaining the patient, includes a mental health professional, a solicitor and normally a judge as president. Disobeying the direction of a tribunal is a criminal offence for the organisation holding the patent so if the tribunal says they’re released then they are released from detention and free to leave.

The only powers under the Mental Health Act that the police have is to detain someone for transport to a health facility for assessment. Tribunals are challenging groups to get reasons for a detention past and they often discharge people who one may think should be detained.

The upshot of all this is that the only way Ms Skripal could be detained in this way is if she was genuinely seriously mentally unwell, neither the clinicians or tribunal would tolerate the use of this act to imprison someone in the way you are suggesting and clinical staff would be likely to blow the whistle on it.

Quick edit to add that there are also short period doctors and nurses holding powers but they’re very short to allow a full assessment team to arrive, plus some court orders but these aren’t relevant either.
 
Last edited:
Well, I have had about a week away from posting stuff doing the mundane things I usually do. I have not seen the Sergei collective deviate from the old mantra in any way whatsoever since my last visit. The arguments are quite redundant now and I am not going to go down the route of rebuttal because I do not wish to give credence to groundless and often offensive conjecture from your end repeated consistently. Come up with a scenario in which the Russian state apparatus did it and then I will engage. Everything else you say is diversion and is now becoming tedious.

Have a look at the highly popular Sherlock Holmes again.

It was written at a time when the class system in the UK was all pervasive. Mr Holmes was the gifted amateur gentleman. Mr Lestrade the professional by virtue of bent and possibly economic necessity. Mr Holmes was well educated. Mr Lestrade was not. Despite these things, Lestrade had achieved high rank, was diligent and hard working. He was respected by his peers and was a good functional copper within the remit of normal crime.

In essence, he was a literary foil to Holmes. Despite this, there was an affection between them both. Strange that you did not notice this element of the class system.

You, of course, use the word Lestrade to imply incompetence. In actual fact, the techniques of such a fictional character are exactly what are needed in this case. Legwork, detail, persistence . Not seeing the light by perceived self worth as per Holmes. Maybe read between the lines of your own government like you may do with a detailed inspection of the Holmes canon.
Indeed mr.Holmes is gifted amateur gentleman
Mr.Lestrade is a professional and this feature sometimes plays as an obstacle in some especially complicated cases.
Mr.Watson is a typical representative of general public.
Mr.Moriarti is a provessional skilled criminal with level of intellect close to one of mr.Holmes.

Watson: Holmes, the Times writes that the Russians poisoned the victims. For me it is obvious.
Lestrade: Yes, Holmes, it is a very easy case. It is obvious who is guilty.
Holmes: There is nothing more deceptive than an obvious fact. There are other possible theories, explanations.
Lestrade: I find it hard enough to tackle facts, Holmes, without flying away after theories and fancies. Give me just a few days and I will find the poisoner.
Watson: The Times writes that the head of Salisbury police col.Moran is absolutely sure - the Russians are guilty.
Lestrade: Yes, and the head of Porton Down Laboratory prof.Moriarti agrees with him. The poison was invented by those devilish Russians.
Holmes: I ought to know by this time that when a fact appears to be opposed to a long train of deductions it invariably proves to be capable of bearing some other interpretation...

On a serious note
You wrote: "Come up with a scenario in which the Russian state apparatus did it and then I will engage."
OK. Let's try to create such a scenario. Anyway it can not be excluded. Are you ready to engage?
Let's suppose that someone in Moscow, maybe not mr.Putin but anyway high ranked decision maker ordered to kill mr.Skripal. I ask questions and would like to hear your opinion.
1. Why namely now? On the eve of the World Football Championship. Why not to wait for a few months?
 
Last edited:
In this scenario, all things are allowed. Therefore we can hypothesise that Mr. Putin may be involved. As it is a thought exercise, this is allowable unless your country is in a far worse state than I thought it was.

Let's suppose that someone in Moscow ordered to kill mr.Skripal.
The initial scenario presented by the UK authorities postulated the idea that either the act was state sponsored or the Russian state had lost control of its weapons. If a high ranker ordered such an action, that would imply a loss of control. It would fit the initial scenario. The perpetrator would either be protected, put to the wolves or put to the wolves at a later date if convenient. This may well happen as I feel the Russian Government are a little surprised by the response to the poisoning. I blame my government in part for this because they have engaged in a policy of appeasement for too long in regard of extra judicial killings in our country. In any event, issues may be cleared in the public eye by scapegoating or alternatively bringing the guilty party to justice.

Why namely now? On the eve of the World Football Championship. Why not to wait for a few months?
This enters the realm of previous input from the collective. Neither you or I are in a position to elaborate motive. The World Cup here can be substituted for Mr. Putin's election. We could go on this track for a good while but I am not going to discuss the whys and wherefores. The incident happened. The truth will out in some form.
 
Why namely now? On the eve of the World Football Championship. Why not to wait for a few months?
Why should they deviate from a process that has in the past been considered standard practice, for a football match?

Might in fact the football match not be a good diversion?

Given the relative importance each gives to human life who is the most likely suspect?

British traitors seem to have lived quite long lives in Russia without mysteriously dying.

So many questions.
 
In this scenario, all things are allowed. Therefore we can hypothesise that Mr. Putin may be involved. As it is a thought exercise, this is allowable unless your country is in a far worse state than I thought it was.
OK. Let's make such a supposition.
The initial scenario presented by the UK authorities postulated the idea that either the act was state sponsored or the Russian state had lost control of its weapons.
Indeed initially this allegation was presented as something proved.
If a high ranker ordered such an action, that would imply a loss of control. It would fit the initial scenario. The perpetrator would either be protected, put to the wolves or put to the wolves at a later date if convenient.
Well. I agree, let's suppose that someone in Moscow ordered the poisoning.
This may well happen as I feel the Russian Government are a little surprised by the response to the poisoning.
It was something well expected. Though it doesn't matter.
I blame my government in part for this because they have engaged in a policy of appeasement for too long in regard of extra judicial killings in our country. In any event, issues may be cleared in the public eye by scapegoating or alternatively bringing the guilty party to justice.
Appeasement? Really?
This enters the realm of previous input from the collective. Neither you or I are in a position to elaborate motive.
OK. Let's not discuss the motive.
The World Cup here can be substituted for Mr. Putin's election.
Putin's reelection was just a technical matter while The World Cup in Russia is super-mega-multi-billion PR project. But British Royal family will not visit the competition. It is such a big tragedy. 'Most likely' they themselves don't wish to visit Russia.
We could go on this track for a good while but I am not going to discuss the whys and wherefores. The incident happened. The truth will out in some form.
I suspect that there will be no anything new, any new information.
However, how the poison was administered? Have you any version?
 
However, how the poison was administered? Have you any version?
Thanks for the reply.

It was presented as highly likely. This means that it was not proved in a court of law which is the only arbiter of legal truth in our system ( I will leave the Queen out of this as her divine right is irrelevant in a constitutional monarchy). It was never presented as proved.

There has been nothing shown to disprove the highly likely contention. There have been a lot of allegations which have been comical and show a vast lack of understanding of how the British system works. and the way the British think and in some respects, how the scientific process works.

In regard of the above quote, I have outlined my ideas as to how it was applied. I have stated down thread that I considered it a gel/matrix formulation. From what I have heard, I was wrong but we will see.


Appeasement? Really?
Yep really. It seems that our government has turned a blind eye in the past to Russian naughtiness and possible extra judicial killings on UK soil. Obviously, I do not have evidence but this is a personal feeling.

In our thought exercise, if Putin is responsible, what would be your opinion of his actions? This would be hypothetically speaking, of course. I accept that Mr. S was/is a traitor. I have no love for such people but the perpetrators were reckless as to damage to others which is bad and frankly unprofessional.

Feel free to reply or not in regard of the latter .I am not trying to draw you out.
 
Putin's reelection was just a technical matter while The World Cup in Russia is super-mega-multi-billion PR project. But British Royal family will not visit the competition. It is such a big tragedy. 'Most likely' they themselves don't wish to visit Russia.
Tragedy...nope just a football match. Well spotted...no they don’t.

Trolling. I guess it’s in the manual. If called out, simply ignore. Never admit.

Problem is so many people seem to believe that Russia is behaving badly. Just a few diplomats expelled??

Putin was doing some serious willy waving with his 'missiles will be intercepted, shot down along with the launch vehicles.'

Never happened.

Must be just a little embarrassing?

Ah yes...the manual. Ignore mistakes that have been seen, we can erase those.

You act as though this is all a simple misunderstanding. It is a world wide revulsion at unacceptable behaviour and a huge disparity in the value given to human life by different cultures.
 

seaweed

LE
Book Reviewer
It is reported that after Litvinenko was murdered the Labour Govt kicked out 4 Russians and three months later sent David(?) Miliband to Moscow to grovel and plead for normalisation of relations.
 
It is reported that after Litvinenko was murdered the Labour Govt kicked out 4 Russians and three months later sent David(?) Miliband to Moscow to grovel and plead for normalisation of relations.
If you want to look at the politics you might want to look at TMPM.

UK-Russian relations were a "factor" in the government's decision not to hold a public inquiry into the death of former Russian agent Alexander Litvinenko, Home Secretary Theresa May has said.

Diplomacy a factor in ex-spy ruling
 

Similar threads

Latest Threads

Top